Access Journals Research Articles

The platinum rule: a powerful tool for the passionate midwife

The objective of this study was to evaluate the evolution of journal self-citation rates (SCRs) and impact factors (IFs) over time in the dental journals.The journals listed under the category “dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine” in the Journal Citation Reports for the years 2014-2016 were screened for the following: citations and self-citations to years used in IF calculation, IF, IF without self-citations (corrected IF), SCR, and quartile of the IF distribution the journal occupied (Q1-Q4). Additional data regarding the number of issues published annually, journal's access options, and country of publication were extracted from the “Journal Profile Page.”The median SCR significantly declined between 2014 and 2016 (13.725 [0-57.049], 12.687 [0-52.326], and 10.667 [0-53.208], respectively [P < .05]), while at the same time, IFs and corrected IFs significantly increased. SCR was significantly higher in subspecialty journals than that in general journals, as well as in the ones publishing more issues per year. Open-access journals tended to present lower SCR compared to journals requiring payment. No statistically significant differences in SCR were observed with respect to the origin and quartile. Nonsignificant correlations (r < 0.3, P > .05) were found for SCR-IF and SCR-corrected IF for all years.There was a statistically significant decrease in SCR during the observation period. SCR was not correlated to IF of dental journals. Subspecialty journals and journals publishing more frequently presented significantly higher SCRs. These findings suggest favorable publishing conditions and citation practices in the dental literature.

Why midwifery? Handling criticism as a bachelor of midwifery student

The objective of this study was to evaluate the evolution of journal self-citation rates (SCRs) and impact factors (IFs) over time in the dental journals.The journals listed under the category “dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine” in the Journal Citation Reports for the years 2014-2016 were screened for the following: citations and self-citations to years used in IF calculation, IF, IF without self-citations (corrected IF), SCR, and quartile of the IF distribution the journal occupied (Q1-Q4). Additional data regarding the number of issues published annually, journal's access options, and country of publication were extracted from the “Journal Profile Page.”The median SCR significantly declined between 2014 and 2016 (13.725 [0-57.049], 12.687 [0-52.326], and 10.667 [0-53.208], respectively [P < .05]), while at the same time, IFs and corrected IFs significantly increased. SCR was significantly higher in subspecialty journals than that in general journals, as well as in the ones publishing more issues per year. Open-access journals tended to present lower SCR compared to journals requiring payment. No statistically significant differences in SCR were observed with respect to the origin and quartile. Nonsignificant correlations (r < 0.3, P > .05) were found for SCR-IF and SCR-corrected IF for all years.There was a statistically significant decrease in SCR during the observation period. SCR was not correlated to IF of dental journals. Subspecialty journals and journals publishing more frequently presented significantly higher SCRs. These findings suggest favorable publishing conditions and citation practices in the dental literature.

The rigorous road to research

The objective of this study was to evaluate the evolution of journal self-citation rates (SCRs) and impact factors (IFs) over time in the dental journals.The journals listed under the category “dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine” in the Journal Citation Reports for the years 2014-2016 were screened for the following: citations and self-citations to years used in IF calculation, IF, IF without self-citations (corrected IF), SCR, and quartile of the IF distribution the journal occupied (Q1-Q4). Additional data regarding the number of issues published annually, journal's access options, and country of publication were extracted from the “Journal Profile Page.”The median SCR significantly declined between 2014 and 2016 (13.725 [0-57.049], 12.687 [0-52.326], and 10.667 [0-53.208], respectively [P < .05]), while at the same time, IFs and corrected IFs significantly increased. SCR was significantly higher in subspecialty journals than that in general journals, as well as in the ones publishing more issues per year. Open-access journals tended to present lower SCR compared to journals requiring payment. No statistically significant differences in SCR were observed with respect to the origin and quartile. Nonsignificant correlations (r < 0.3, P > .05) were found for SCR-IF and SCR-corrected IF for all years.There was a statistically significant decrease in SCR during the observation period. SCR was not correlated to IF of dental journals. Subspecialty journals and journals publishing more frequently presented significantly higher SCRs. These findings suggest favorable publishing conditions and citation practices in the dental literature.

ASHA Members Have New Journal Access

ASHA Members Have New Journal Access

Open or Conventional Access: Integrity in the Process.

A wave of new publishing options has opened for nursing. This dialogue examines factors, such as quality and cost, that may influence new authors. There are numerous options for young scientists with many new journal titles and promises of a quick review and guaranteed publication. Choices between Open Access and conventional journals can be difficult since higher cost to the author does not correlate with higher quality.

Letter from the editor

Dear contributors:&#x0D; After 5 consecutive years as editor-in-chief of Ciencias Marinas, Dr. Alejandro Cabello Pasini has now abdicated this position to undertake other academic projects at the Autonomous University of Baja California (Mexico). This change in editorship concurs with the 45th anniversary of the establishment of Ciencias Marinas and marks the beginning of a new phase in the growth and development of our scholarly journal. The editorial team has thus far completed many projects, such as updating our publishing platform, all aimed to improve journal presentation, visibility, and accessibility. It has now taken the first steps in transitioning from an electronic publishing format to a completely digital format, and it will continue to work hard to guarantee that Ciencias Marinas continues evolving.&#x0D; Over these past 45 years Ciencias Marinas has been a conduit for the professional and inclusive delivery of sound scientific information on the four disciplines of marine science (biology, physics, geology, and chemistry). At the moment we are focusing on strengthening our international support system to reach higher publishing standards. To achieve this goal, we are expanding, refining, and updating our editorial board, which now includes even more international experts with outstanding academic careers. We will continue to expand our editorial board by extending additional invitations to other experts who wish to collaborate in this project that is Ciencias Marinas, and we hope to soon welcome new member to our board.&#x0D; I would now like to take the opportunity to thank previous editors-in-chief for their contributions, which have elevated our journal to its current position. Their contributions give me a great advantage to further improve the quality of the journal products. I am also thankful to the members of the editorial board, who have provided much support by efficiently and professionally managing the editorial processes of our submissions. As a result of this work, our list of reviewers has significantly increased in number and quality, and this will reflect on the quality of the papers we publish. We are working our way to better our remote communication with the editorial board so we can jointly establish new publication strategies aimed to improve the quality of our journal and its impact in the scientific community.&#x0D; I want to thank the Autonomous University of Baja California for all the support it has provided over these past 45 years for the upkeep of the journal. My thanks go to the editorial office administration staff, who have done and continue doing an excellent job, and to the reviewers, the readers, and the authors, because without them this journal would not be what it is today. We will keep working with everyone to continually improve Ciencias Marinas, and we hope we continue receiving your contributions. In the meantime, please feel free to visit our website and check our new journal cover and other new things we have set up you.&#x0D; Sincerely,&#x0D; Miguel Angel Huerta Díaz &#x0D; Editor-in-chief&#x0D;

Six Simple Steps to Share Your Data When Publishing Research Articles

AbstractIn this article, I provide six simple steps for authors to make their data available and meet the most common data publishing requirements for both open‐access and non‐open–access journals. These steps are simple and can easily be integrated into authors' workflows when conducting research and writing research articles. The steps include: deciding authorship of the dataset vs. authorship of the research article; exporting the data needed for all article analyses into archivable (preferably plain text) files using simple table formats; writing the metadata; depositing the data and metadata in a data repository; writing a data availability statement in the article; and citing the dataset in the methods and literature cited sections. Authors who implement these guidelines will reap many benefits for their science while also following best practices for open, robust, and reproducible science.

A cross-sectional description of open access publication costs, policies and impact in emergency medicine and critical care journals.

IntroductionFinding journal open access information alongside its global impact requires access to multiple databases. We describe a single, searchable database of all emergency medicine and critical care journals that include their open access policies, publication costs, and impact metrics.MethodsA list of emergency medicine and critical care journals (including citation metrics) was created using Scopus (Citescore) and the Web of Science (Impact Factor). Cost of gold/hybrid open access and article process charges (open access fees) were collected from journal websites. Self-archiving policies were collected from the Sherpa/RoMEO database. Relative cost of access in different regions were calculated using the World Bank Purchasing Power Parity index for authors from the United States, Germany, Turkey, China, Brazil, South Africa and Australia.ResultsWe identified 78 emergency medicine and 82 critical care journals. Median Citescore for emergency medicine was 0.73 (interquartile range, IQR 0.32–1.27). Median impact factor was 1.68 (IQR 1.00–2.39). Median Citescore for critical care was 0.95 (IQR 0.25–2.06). Median impact factor was 2.18 (IQR 1.73–3.50). Mean article process charge for emergency medicine was $2243.04, SD = $1136.16 and for critical care $2201.64, SD = $1174.38. Article process charges were 2.24, 1.75, 2.28 and 1.56 times more expensive for South African, Chinese, Turkish and Brazilian authors respectively than United States authors, but neutral for German and Australian authors (1.02 and 0.81 respectively). The database can be accessed here: http://www.emct.info/publication-search.html.ConclusionsWe present a single database that captures emergency medicine and critical care journal impact rankings alongside its respective open access cost and green open access policies.

University of California boycotts publishing giant Elsevier over journal costs and open access

University of California boycotts publishing giant Elsevier over journal costs and open access

Log Often, Lose More: Electronic Dietary Self-Monitoring for Weight Loss.

Dietary self-monitoring is consistently related to both short- and long-term weight loss. The purpose of this study was to quantify the time spent and the daily frequency of self-monitoring necessary for weight-loss success. Participants in a 24-week, online, behavioral weight-control intervention recorded daily dietary intake using a Web-based dietary analysis program. Time spent self-monitoring and frequency of dietary journal page access were captured. Weight loss (kilograms) and the proportion of participants losing ≥ 5% and ≥ 10% of baseline weight were assessed at 6 months. Participants (n = 142; BMI 35.8 kg/m2 ; 90.8% female; 23.2% African American) spent an average of 23.2 minutes per day self-monitoring in month 1 and 14.6 minutes in month 6. For those still recording any minutes self-monitoring by month 6 (65.5%), there were no significant differences in time spent based on weight loss; however, those losing either ≥ 5% or ≥ 10% logged in to the journal Web page significantly more times per day (1.6 vs. 2.4, P < 0.001 for < 5% vs. ≥ 5%; 1.7 vs. 2.7, P < 0.001 for < 10% vs. ≥ 10%). The frequency of self-monitoring is significantly related to weight loss, with the time needed to be successful diminishing during the intervention.

Predatory publishing or a lack of peer review transparency?—a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology

The advent of open access publishing has allowed for unrestrictedand rapid knowledge disseminationand can generate higher citation levels. However, the establishment of predatory journals exploits this model and may lead to publication of non-peer reviewed work. The objective of this study was to compare the characteristics and trends of indexed publications in paediatric urology. The primary outcomes were to compare open access vs non-open access publishing. The secondary outcome was to assess whether any open access publications in this cohort could be classified as predatory based on journal data basing and external peer review policies. PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase reviews were carried out for any publication using the terms 'p(a)ediatric urology' over a 5-year period (October 2012-2017). These publications were individually accessed, assessed for relevance and cross-checked using the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Report. Bibliometric data, journal typeand access model were all individually assessed, rankedand compared using descriptive and non-parametric statistical methods. From an initial total of 4075 indexed publications, 2244 journal publications across 51 countries were included based on relevance, of which 611 were open access. Open access journals were significantly more likely to publish basic science/laboratory versus clinical publications (10.9% vs 3.3%). They were more likely have higher average citations/publication (17 vs. 8), but there was no difference between open and closed journal impact factors (3.1 vs. 2.7). The overall rate of open access, indexed publications that were not peer reviewed and/or included in open access databases was 6.5% DISCUSSION: The overall numbers of paediatric urological articles appearing on PubMed between 2012 and 2017 have increased by approximately 75%, while the number of open access articles has remained relatively static (25%). Researchers may prefer to publish in specific journals to disseminate results to a particular audienceor fear in the current climatethat an open access journal may not be considered legitimate, and possibly even predatory, thus having a negative impact on the dataand the author's reputation. The impact factor statusand route/method of publication may be less important. Open access, peer reviewed publishing allows rapid international knowledge dissemination. The exact objective definition of what constitutes a predatory journal remains controversial. We have identified a time-stable prevalence of 6.5% open access publications that could meet proposed criteria for a 'borderline/predatory journal'; however, this should not influence the decision to publish in open access journals.

Open access mythbusting: Testing two prevailing assumptions about the effects of open access adoption

This article looks at whether there is evidence to support two prevailing assumptions about open access (OA). These assumptions are: (1) fully OA journals are inherently of poorer quality than journals supported by other business models and (2) the OA business model, that is, paying for publication, is more ‘competitive’ than the subscription journal access business model. The assumptions have been discussed in contemporary industry venues, and we have encountered them in the course of their work advising scholarly communications organizations. Our objective was to apply data analytics techniques to see if these assumptions bore scrutiny. By combining citation‐based impact scores with data from publishers’ price lists, we were able to look for relationships between business model, price, and ‘quality’ across several thousands of journals. We found no evidence suggesting that OA journals suffer significant quality issues compared with non‐OA journals. Furthermore, authors do not appear to ‘shop around’ based on OA price.

Students’ perspective on informed consent – part 2

The objective of this study was to evaluate the evolution of journal self-citation rates (SCRs) and impact factors (IFs) over time in the dental journals.The journals listed under the category “dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine” in the Journal Citation Reports for the years 2014-2016 were screened for the following: citations and self-citations to years used in IF calculation, IF, IF without self-citations (corrected IF), SCR, and quartile of the IF distribution the journal occupied (Q1-Q4). Additional data regarding the number of issues published annually, journal's access options, and country of publication were extracted from the “Journal Profile Page.”The median SCR significantly declined between 2014 and 2016 (13.725 [0-57.049], 12.687 [0-52.326], and 10.667 [0-53.208], respectively [P < .05]), while at the same time, IFs and corrected IFs significantly increased. SCR was significantly higher in subspecialty journals than that in general journals, as well as in the ones publishing more issues per year. Open-access journals tended to present lower SCR compared to journals requiring payment. No statistically significant differences in SCR were observed with respect to the origin and quartile. Nonsignificant correlations (r < 0.3, P > .05) were found for SCR-IF and SCR-corrected IF for all years.There was a statistically significant decrease in SCR during the observation period. SCR was not correlated to IF of dental journals. Subspecialty journals and journals publishing more frequently presented significantly higher SCRs. These findings suggest favorable publishing conditions and citation practices in the dental literature.

Factors influencing application of behavioural science evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners, and implications for practice.

The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK recommends behavioural science evidence underpins public health improvement services. In practice, level of implementation varies. This study is the first to explore factors affecting use of behaviour-specific evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners for design and delivery of health improvement services. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted, along with a review of the commissioning cycle with public health decision-makers and practitioners across a range of health improvement fields (e.g. weight management). Interviews were informed and analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Limited comprehension of behaviour change, challenges identifying specific behaviour change strategies and translating research into practice were prevalent. Local authority processes encouraged uptake of evidence to justify solutions as opposed to evidence-driven decision-making. Some decision-makers perceived research evidence may stifle innovation and overwhelm practitioners. Potential facilitators of research use included: ensuring uptake and implementation of evidence is compulsory within commissioning and its potential to show value for money. A strong belief in local evidence and achieving outcomes were identified as barriers to research evidence uptake. Social and environmental challenges included cultural, political, and workload pressures and journal article accessibility. Embedding behavioural science systematically into public health practice requires changes throughout the public health system; from priorities set by national public health leaders to the way in which relevant evidence is disseminated. Framing factors affecting use of behavioural science evidence using the TDF is helpful for identifying the range of interventions and support needed to affect change.

Systematic review of dynamization vs exchange nailing for delayed/non-union femoral fractures.

AIMTo analyze the literature on efficacy of dynamamization vs exchange nailing in treatment of delayed and non-union femur fractures.METHODSUltimately, 31 peer-reviewed articles with 644 exchanged nailing patients and 131 dynamization patients were identified and analyzed. The following key words were inputted in different combinations in order to search the field of publications in its entirety: “non-union”, “delayed union”, “ununited”, “femur fracture”, “femoral fracture”, “exchange nailing”, “dynaiz(s)ation”, “secondary nailing”, “dynamic”, “static”, and “nail revision”. The initial search yielded over 150 results, and was refined based on the inclusion criteria: Only studies reporting on humans, non-unions and delayed unions, and the usage of exchange nailing and/or dynamization as a secondary treatment after failed IM nailing. The resulting 66 articles were obtained through online journal access. The results were filtered further based on the exclusion criteria: No articles that failed to report overall union rates, differentiate between success rates of their reported techniques, or articles that analyzed less than 5 patients.RESULTSExchange nailing lead to fracture union in 84.785% of patients compared to the 66.412% of dynamization with statistically comparable durations until union (5.193 ± 2.310 mo and 4.769 ± 1.986 mo respectively). Dynamically locking exchange nails resulted in an average union time of 5.208 ± 2.475 mo compared to 5.149 ± 2.366 mo (P = 0.8682) in statically locked exchange nails. The overall union rate of the two procedures, statically and dynamically locked exchange nailing yielded union rates of 84.259% and 82.381% respectively. Therefore, there was no significant difference between the different locking methods of exchange nailing for union rate or time to union at a significance value of P < 0.05. The analysis showed exchange nailing to be the more successful choice in the treatment of femoral non-unions in respect to its higher success rate (491/567 EN, 24/57 dynam, P < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference between the success rates of the two procedures for delayed union fractures (25/27 EN, 45/55 dynam, P = 0.3299). Nevertheless, dynamization was more efficient in the treatment of delayed unions (at rates comparable to exchange nailing) than in the treatment of non-unions.CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, after examination of factors, dynamization is recommended treatment of delayed femur fractures, while exchange nailing is the treatment of choice for non-unions.

“Worth(less) papers” – are journal impact factor and number of citations suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists?

Technology driven changings with consecutive increase in the on-line availability and accessibility of journals and papers rapidly changes patterns of academic communication and publishing. The dissemination of important research findings through the academic and scientific community begins with publication in peer-reviewed journals. Aim of this article is to identify, critically evaluate and integrate the findings of relevant, high-quality individual studies addressing the trends of enhancement of visibility and accessibility of academic publishing in digital era. The number of citations a paper receives is often used as a measure of its impact and by extension, of its quality. Many aberrations of the citation practices have been reported in the attempt to increase impact of someone’s paper through manipulation with self-citation, inter-citation and citation cartels. Authors revenues to legally extend visibility, awareness and accessibility of their research outputs with uprising in citation and amplifying measurable personal scientist impact has strongly been enhanced by on line communication tools like networking (LinkedIn, Research Gate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar), sharing (Facebook, Blogs, Twitter, Google Plus) media sharing (Slide Share), data sharing (Dryad Digital Repository, Mendeley database, PubMed, PubChem), code sharing, impact tracking. Publishing in Open Access journals. Many studies and review articles in last decade have examined whether open access articles receive more citations than equivalent subscription toll access) articles and most of them lead to conclusion that there might be high probability that open access articles have the open access citation advantage over generally equivalent payfor-access articles in many, if not most disciplines. But it is still questionable are those never cited papers indeed “Worth(less) papers” and should journal impact factor and number of citations be considered as only suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists? “Publish or perish” phrase usually used to describe the pressure in academia to rapidly and continually publish academic work to sustain or further one’s career can now in 21. Century be reformulate into “Publish, be cited and maybe will not Perish”.

Chemical Coagulation Efficiency in Removal of Water Turbidity

Health promotion and protection of environment constantly depends on providing clean water. Water turbidity caused by suspended particles and colloids in it. So the aim of this study was to review the efficiency of chemical coagulation in removal of water turbidity.In this study all the present articles were searched in internal databases including Iran medex, Irandoc and SID and external databases such as Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct, scientific database of World Health Organization (Medicos / WHO / EMR), free journal access guide (Open Access Journal Directory of), PubMed using the Key words of coagulants, chemical coagulation, total water turbidity, the articles were searched and 268 articles were extracted and 25 articles that were completely relevance with the topic was reviewed. Including inorganic polymer coagulants advantages of high efficiency compared to conventional coagulants extensively in a range of pH, and better performance at various temperatures, especially at low temperatures is the Among the advantages of polymeric inorganic coagulants efficiently compared to conventional coagulants is appropriate efficient in an extensively range of pH, and better performance at various temperatures especially at low temperatures.Based on the studies, it was concluded that the use of chemical coagulation is an effective way to reduce water turbidity and the use of poly aluminum chloride due to low sludge production, reduction of PH to a limited extent, creation of large fluke, less residual and high rate of sedimentation in water is greater than other coagulants. © 2018, Advanced Scientific Research. All rights reserved.

Effects of Attentional Focus during Short-Term Drop-Jump Training on Strength, Jump and Sprint Performances in Hurling Players

Article published (open access) in Journal of Physical Fitness, Medicine and Treatment in Sport on 21 June 2018 available at https://doi.org/10.19080/JPFMTS.2018.04.555642

#MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education.

IntroductionResearchers, funders, and institutions are interested in understanding and quantifying research dissemination and impact, particularly related to communicating with the public. Traditionally, citations have been a primary impact measure; however, citations can be slow to accrue and focus on academic use. Recently altmetrics, which track alternate dissemination forms (e. g., social media), have been suggested as a complement to citation-based metrics. This study examines the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures: journal article citations and access counts.MethodsThe researchers queried Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer for articles published in HPE journals between 2013–2015. They identified 2,486 articles with altmetrics. Data were analyzed using negative binomial and linear regression models.ResultsBlogging was associated with the greatest increase in citations (13% increase), whereas Tweets (1.2%) and Mendeley (1%) were associated with smaller increases. Journal impact factor (JIF) was associated with a 21% increase in citations. Publicly accessible articles were associated with a 19% decrease, but the interactive effect between accessible articles and JIF was associated with a 12% increase. When examining access counts, publicly accessible articles had an increase of 170 access counts whereas blogging was associated with a decrease of 87 accesses.DiscussionThis study suggests that several altmetrics outlets are positively associated with citations, and that public accessibility, holding all other independent variables constant, is positively related to article access. Given the scientific community’s evolving focus on dissemination these findings have implications for stakeholders, providing insight into the factors that may improve citations and access of articles.

Health sciences libraries' subscriptions to journals: expectations of general practice departments and collection-based analysis.

ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to (i) assess the expectations of general practice departments regarding health sciences libraries’ subscriptions to journals and (ii) describe the current general practice journal collections of health sciences libraries.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to the thirty-five university general practice departments in France. General practice departments were asked to list ten journals to which they expected access via the subscriptions of their health sciences libraries. A ranked reference list of journals was then developed. Access to these journals was assessed through a survey sent to all health sciences libraries in France. Adequacy ratios (access/need) were calculated for each journal.ResultsAll general practice departments completed the survey. The total reference list included 44 journals. This list was heterogeneous in terms of indexation/impact factor, language of publication, and scope (e.g., patient care, research, or medical education). Among the first 10 journals listed, La Revue Prescrire (96.6%), La Revue du Praticien–Médecine Générale (90.9%), the British Medical Journal (85.0%), Pédagogie Médicale (70.0%), Exercer (69.7%), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (62.5%) had the highest adequacy ratios, whereas Family Practice (4.2%), the British Journal of General Practice (16.7%), Médecine (29.4%), and the European Journal of General Practice (33.3%) had the lowest adequacy ratios.ConclusionsGeneral practice departments have heterogeneous expectations in terms of health sciences libraries’ subscriptions to journals. It is important for librarians to understand the heterogeneity of these expectations, as well as local priorities, so that journal access meets users’ needs.